500 words a day on whatever I want

Orlando Patterson on “The Bell Curve”

Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard, says “The Bell Curve” (1994) by Charles Murray and fellow Harvard professor Richard J Herrnstein, is “an utterly racist book”. He does not make the charge lightly.

America was founded on the strange idea that even though people are plainly unequal in all sorts of ways – like beauty, wealth and intelligence – morally and in the eyes of the law they should be regarded as equal. This has not always been achieved in practice, but the country has made solid progress in that direction.

The civil rights reforms of the 1960s are a clear example. It was more than just a change of law: it was a change of heart. For the first time ever most white Americans saw blacks as a part of the American family, as a true part of the country. We sink or swim together. We.

“The Bell Curve” would turn the country back from that. It says that blacks and poor whites are born with low IQs and so the country should wall them off and protect itself from their troubles as best it can.

In fact, if you follow the argument all the way, the country should sterilize them so they stop having all those hopeless, low-IQ babies. But Murray and Herrnstein do not have the courage to say that.

The trouble here is not that blacks have low IQs but that Murray and Herrnstein do not see them as a true part of the country. How do we know? Because there are plenty of people with low IQs that they never pick on or see as a threat. Like white Southerners. Or old people. Or poor but beautiful white women who marry high-IQ men.

Or their own grandparents.

Their grandparents did at least as badly on IQ tests as present-day blacks (if you take into account the Flynn Effect where IQs are slowly going up), But in that case, suddenly, Murray and Herrnstein no longer think the IQ tests are trustworthy, that their grandparents were just as intelligent as they are. How odd.

For some reason, low IQ scores only count for those from another class or race. Thus the racism.

The book does present opposing arguments and studies, but that is pretty much all it does: present them. It carries on and believes whatever it wants to believe. There is no intellectual honesty.

The book says nothing new, nothing that Arthur Jensen did not say in the 1970s. It just says it in a worse way:

One longs for the straightforward doggedness, robust scholarship, and honest stance of an Arthur Jensen. It embarrasses me that a Harvard man, whom I knew well and once respected, could engage in such a cowardly discourse.

Unfortunately, white liberals and black thinkers are not much better: they do not want the low black IQs to be genetic – but neither do they want it to be cultural, as in caused by black culture. You cannot have it both ways.

Share this post:

Like this:

189 Responses

“Because there are plenty of people with low IQs that they never pick on or see as a threat. Like white Southerners. Or old people. Or poor but beautiful white women who marry high-IQ men.

Or their own grandparents.”

That’s a great point. We had a podcast debate with an HBD proponent, and King asked him what the IQ differences used to be and what they were now. The HBD guy said that the differences were actually much bigger before the civil rights movement. King said something like, “Oh, the gap is narrowing? That’s interesting.”

It’s so funny because these racialists keep arguing that IQ is unchanging, and that it’s all-determining, and yet they close their eyes to the reality that it’s culturally determined in a big way. If genes were everything and if IQ were truly an all-encompassing test of intelligence, low IQ people would not be having high IQ grandchildren.

Growing up I’ve always seen negative cultural traits within certain segments of the Black community that impede progress, however I am not naive enough to believe cultures fall down from the sky. Some may believe that acknowledging the sociological and historical factors that created some of the social ills within the Black community is blame shifting, but it’s not. Simply saying racism has an effect on a group doesn’t mean they want another group to hand out or do anything.

In my opinion the “Bell Curve” is more classist/political than racist. I have always had two theories about the authors’ motives in writing the book.
-Getting rid of Affirmative Action, welfare, white guilt(which may be a myth), and garnering support for conservative policies that serve the White upper class.
-Cloak the actual reasons for 3rd world poverty(corporate exploitation). Allowing the public to believe 3rd nations are poor because the inhabitants inherently have a lower intellect keeps people from actually paying attention corporate control over these developing countries.

Oh and I want to leave a counter-argument to the “Bell Curve” for any person who happens to come across this site. I would hate for someone to Wikipedia ‘race & intelligence’ and come across a 100% pro-HBD page(Too bad I’m too lazy to make it at least somewhat objective).

Using an individually inherited trait and applying it to an entire group of people is nonsense. The 15pt racial IQ gap between blks and whites is no different than the same IQ gap between 1930 white Americans and today’s white Americans. The Burakumin of Japan are the same race/ethnicity as majority Japanese. They are a SOCIAL minority & yet their is an IQ gap of 15pts between them & majority Japanese. It’s the environment dummy! Your height is an inherited trait, but the average height of today is significantly taller than the near past!

Why do Afro-Caribbeans and Afro Americans have higher IQs on avg than Black Africans if studies have shown Euro admixture does not enhance IQ?

All Brains Are the Same Color
By RICHARD E. NISBETT
Published: December 9, 2007

JAMES WATSON, the 1962 Nobel laureate, recently asserted that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa”… “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”

…The first notable public airing of the scientific question came in a 1969 article in The Harvard Educational Review by Arthur Jensen, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Jensen maintained that a 15-point difference in I.Q. between blacks and whites was mostly due to a genetic difference between the races that could never be erased. But his argument gave a misleading account of the evidence. And others who later made the same argument — Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in “The Bell Curve,” in 1994, for example, and just recently, William Saletan in a series of articles on Slate — have made the same mistake.

In fact, the evidence heavily favors the view that race differences in I.Q. are environmental in origin, not genetic.

The hereditarians begin with the assertion that 60 percent to 80 percent of variation in I.Q. is genetically determined. However, most estimates of heritability have been based almost exclusively on studies of middle-class groups. For the poor, a group that includes a substantial proportion of minorities, heritability of I.Q. is very low, in the range of 10 percent to 20 percent, according to recent research by Eric Turkheimer at the University of Virginia. This means that for the poor, improvements in environment have great potential to bring about increases in I.Q.

In any case, the degree of heritability of a characteristic tells us nothing about how much the environment can affect it. Even when a trait is highly heritable (think of the height of corn plants), modifiability can also be great (think of the difference growing conditions can make).

Nearly all the evidence suggesting a genetic basis for the I.Q. differential is indirect. There is, for example, the evidence that brain size is correlated with intelligence, and that blacks have smaller brains than whites. But the brain size difference between men and women is substantially greater than that between blacks and whites, yet men and women score the same, on average, on I.Q. tests. Likewise, a group of people in a community in Ecuador have a genetic anomaly that produces extremely small head sizes — and hence brain sizes. Yet their intelligence is as high as that of their unaffected relatives.

Why rely on such misleading and indirect findings when we have much more direct evidence about the basis for the I.Q. gap? About 25 percent of the genes in the American black population are European, meaning that the genes of any individual can range from 100 percent African to mostly European. If European intelligence genes are superior, then blacks who have relatively more European genes ought to have higher I.Q.’s than those who have more African genes. But it turns out that skin color and “negroidness” of features — both measures of the degree of a black person’s European ancestry — are only weakly associated with I.Q. (even though we might well expect a moderately high association due to the social advantages of such features).

During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.

If European genes conferred an advantage, we would expect that the smartest blacks would have substantial European heritage. But when a group of investigators sought out the very brightest black children in the Chicago school system and asked them about the race of their parents and grandparents, these children were found to have no greater degree of European ancestry than blacks in the population at large.

Most tellingly, blood-typing tests have been used to assess the degree to which black individuals have European genes. The blood group assays show no association between degree of European heritage and I.Q. Similarly, the blood groups most closely associated with high intellectual performance among blacks are no more European in origin than other blood groups.

The closest thing to direct evidence that the hereditarians have is a study from the 1970s showing that black children who had been adopted by white parents had lower I.Q.’s than those of mixed-race children adopted by white parents. But, as the researchers acknowledged, the study had many flaws; for instance, the black children had been adopted at a substantially later age than the mixed-race children, and later age at adoption is associated with lower I.Q.

A superior adoption study — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children. Most telling is Dr. Moore’s finding that children adopted by white families had I.Q.’s 13 points higher than those of children adopted by black families. The environments that even middle-class black children grow up in are not as favorable for the development of I.Q. as those of middle-class whites.

Important recent psychological research helps to pinpoint just what factors shape differences in I.Q. scores. Joseph Fagan of Case Western Reserve University and Cynthia Holland of Cuyahoga Community College tested blacks and whites on their knowledge of, and their ability to learn and reason with, words and concepts…

What do we know about the effects of environment?

That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole, I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States alone, it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could produce changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also produce big differences between subpopulations at any given time.

In fact, we know that the I.Q. difference between black and white 12-year-olds has dropped to 9.5 points from 15 points in the last 30 years — a period that was more favorable for blacks in many ways than the preceding era. Black progress on the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows equivalent gains. Reading and math improvement has been modest for whites but substantial for blacks.

Most important, we know that interventions at every age from infancy to college can reduce racial gaps in both I.Q. and academic achievement, sometimes by substantial amounts in surprisingly little time. This mutability is further evidence that the I.Q. difference has environmental, not genetic, causes. And it should encourage us, as a society, to see that all children receive ample opportunity to develop their minds.

Traditionally oppressed minorities scoring lower on IQ test is worldwide phenomenon along with the social ills they face(incarceration rates, poverty, lower life expectancies, health, etc.) Some of these groups include: Maori New Zealanders vs Euro-New Zealanders. Israeli Jews outscore Israeli Arabs. Most Japanese outscore the stigmatized SOCIAL minority, the Burakumin(Same race). Those who can hear vs those born deaf(Braden, 1994; Steele, 1990; Zeidner,1990).

It doesn’t have to be contemporary racism causing this per se. It could be a myriad of reasons. Take your pick!

In Table 1- Enrollments by color/race at all levels of schooling – Brazil – 2000 at the 2nd to last page you can see that Blk and Pardo(brown/Mulatto) Brazilians have similar education rates clearly unequal to their White Brazilian counterparts. Yet, genetic studies show Blk Brazilians are only 55%African and 35-40% Euro on avg, Pardos are more Euro than African, and Whites are about 80%Euro, 10% Afro, & 10%Amerindian. Why so much racial inequality in Brazil among non-Whites(Blks & Pardos) and Whites if the non-Whites are Whiter less pure than African Americans?http://congreso.us.es/cesrea/OKpapers/25%20Rosemary%20DORE%20e%20MOhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/11/091102_brazil_black_ap.shtml

in different eras throughout history different ethnic groups have had golden ages.﻿ 25 hundred yrs ago it was the Greeks & Egyptians(currently a 3rd world country), then the Romans. In the eighth and ninth centuries you saw a lot of smart folks in the Arab world; 500yrs ago Northern Europeans and Aztec Indians(fuckin Mexico!), and now East Asia.

How does history explain places like Mexico(where Indians are currently the poorest in society) and Egypt? In the 1960s Japan and West Africa were in the same lvls of development! Difference is they were free to make their own economic decisions(IMF/World Bank!)

This post presents Patterson’s opinion as I understand it. I think he brings up some good points but I do not agree with all of it. In particular I am not so sure that most white Americans think of blacks as a true part of the country. But we both agree that Murray and Herrnstein do not.

I do not know what causes the IQ gap. I suspect is has way more to do with education than genetics. To me, saying blacks have low IQs is like Jefferson saying blacks cannot understand Euclid.

Patterson thinks the IQ gap is caused by a screwed up black culture. The culture is screwed up in terms of doing well at school. But it is NOT screwed up in terms of protecting blacks from genocide. If blacks were not seen as violent and hypermasculine, they would have been wiped out, like the Jews in Europe or Native Americans. But now that whites are not so racist, the culture has outlived its usefulness. Thus Patterson.

To which I say, such a culture would still make sense and still be needed anywhere the police are seen as a threat or where they are failing to keep law and order. As is the case at least in black ghettos in big cities.

“Unfortunately, white liberals and black thinkers are not much better: they do not want the low black IQs to be genetic – but neither do they want it to be cultural, as in caused by black culture. You cannot have it both ways.”

You just broke the sound barrier with that one. Is that you talking or ol’ dude?

Am I the only one here who thinks black culture is all tied up with racism? As in, you can’t come up with (around) racism and come out clean. As in american black culture (whatever it is or isn’t) isn’t just black. It wasn’t created in a blackuum.

The whole post is ol’ dude Patterson. And he would agree with you that black culture has been heavily shaped by white racism. But he would also say that that racism is mostly gone and so the culture has become counterproductive: it no longer protects them from whites but just shoots themselves in the foot.

I still wonder how the hell these racists, or HBDers get their boners from this IQ crap? It has been shown many times over that the whole IQ thing is very, very problematic at least.

All attemps to classify, sample, categorize and sort humanbeings in separate classes and entities are attemps to create them vs us mindsets. The whole point is to create humans and non humans, better ones and not so good ones. The whole idea is to explain that there are us, the real humanbeings, and them, those who are not really humans in the same way as we are. Us vs them. In vs out. Good vs bad. Human vs non human.

IQs allow racists to dress up their belief as science. Racism in turn grew out of the need to excuse the use of guns to take land and make slaves. Racism continues among White Americans because it allows them to see their society and themselves as basically good, fair and just. There are probably some psychocultural issues as well.

Sam said: “All attemps to classify, sample, categorize and sort humanbeings in separate classes and entities are attemps to create them vs us mindsets.”

In this debate there is both “knowledge” and “intention”. Explicitly pro-HBD types and explicitly anti-HBD types seem to regularly conflate the two.

Are there measurable differences between geographically different populations of people? It seems likely.

We can see great morphological differences in domesticated mammals after just a few generations of selective breeding, so the idea that humans might develop divergent characteristics over tens of thousands of years of living in markedly diverse biomes seems plausible.

Just because some people will attempt to utilize knowledge towards purposes which might be objectionable doesn’t mean that we should turn our back on science.

So maybe a good way to counter hbd arguments is to discuss how and why IQ differences are cultural. I assume that as black culture was shaped by racism blaming it for iq differences would be the lesser evil. And besides being the more likely explanation, doing so would also place some responsibility on whites. And rightly so.

That is what I have been thinking for a while now. Like I mentioned earlier lower IQs among traditionally oppressed minorities is a worldwide phenomenon. From the Maoris of New Zealand compared to Euro NZers, the Roma Gypsies of Europe, the Burakumin(social not racial/ethnic/genetic minority) of Japan, and we might as well add Native Americans since they have a lower socio-economic status from Canada on down to Argentina. I don’t think this is a coincidence.

The question is, does past racism or contemporary racism dull the richness of a culture? Maybe after suffering years of oppression a lack of motivation develops after being within a society that never allowed you to reach the top in the first place. After an entire childhood of going to a predominantly Black schools I can definitely say I have witnessed this mentality a lot. Of course this is just one theory…

@Randy Garver
Are there measurable differences between geographically different populations of people?

This is the thing I don’t understand about pro-HBD people. I understand they say human beings are different in this and that or whatever, but how do they know what to categorize these people? Where does one group begin and another end? What do they mean by “White” and “Black.” I am sure they believe that race is a biological reality, but how do they know what populations to group with each other? For instance…

“It is indeed possible to combine the information from covarying traits into weighted averages that take account of the traits’ covariation (technically known as “principal components” of variation). When this has been done, however, the results have not borne out the claims for racial divisions. The geographical maps of principal component values constructed by Cavalli, Menozzi and Piazza in their famous “The History and Geography of Human Genes,” show continuous variation over the whole world with no sharp boundaries and with no greater similarity occurring between Western and Eastern Europeans than between Europeans and Africans! Thus, the classically defined races do not appear from an unprejudiced description of human variation. Only the Australian Aborigines appear as a unique group.

A clustering of populations that does correspond to classical continental “races” can be acheived by using a special class of non-functional DNA, microsatellites. By selecting among microsatellites, it is possible to find a set that will cluster together African populations, European populations, and Asian populations, etc. These selected microsatellite DNA markers are not typical of genes, however, but have been chosen precisely because they are “maximally informative” about group differences. Thus, they tell us what we already knew about the differences between populations of the classical “races” from skin color, face shape, and hair form. They have the added advantage of allowing us to make good estimates of the amount of intermixture that has occurred between populations as a result of migrations and conquests.”

If their is no greater similarity between Western and Eastern Europeans than their is between Europeans and Africans, why would HDBers group both of these European people as “White”? Sub-Saharan Africa contains the most genetic variation than any other continent. Western Africans are NOT biologically the same as Southern Africans below the 3rd parallel. Do they take this into consideration when they group populations and tell us about just how different they believe they are? How do they apply this knowledge to simplistic racial classifications?

I’d guess that a broad continuum of genetic differences is less problematic for impartial scientists to deal with than it is for ideologues, which further reinforces the argument that politics and science make poor bedfellows (or at least politics and rudimentary science).

“We can see great morphological differences in domesticated mammals after just a few generations of selective breeding, so the idea that humans might develop divergent characteristics over tens of thousands of years of living in markedly diverse biomes seems plausible.”

Not really. Selective breeding itself is a complex business if you’re looking to breed for specific differences. And often, what you’re seeing are simply the results of dormant genes manifesting themselves, rather than the evolutionary development of “new” traits.

What a hoot. Of course it makes the charge lightly. Black intellectuals and rabble rousers, leftists, and most blacks in general make that charge incredibly lightly. They toss it off for any infringement of PC in that direction, no matter how not hate filled, bigoted, or scientifically based such infringing claims are, such as here in the Bell Curve. Which is not a racist book at all.

For the first time ever most white Americans saw blacks as a part of the American family, as a true part of the country. We sink or swim together. We.

No they didn’t. They didn’t see blacks as part of a huge American family; they saw blacks as Americans deserving equal treatment rather than government de jure segregation and second class citizenship.

The trouble here is not that blacks have low IQs but that Murray and Herrnstein do not see them as a true part of the country. How do we know? Because there are plenty of people with low IQs that they never pick on or see as a threat.

This is an utterly false characterization of the book. They actually don’t pick on anyone. And yes they do talk about poor whites a lot in it.

As for being a treat, though it isn’t what the books about much at all or something Murray much addresses, the fact is that low IQ blacks are much more of a threat than low IQ whites. Blacks have much higher rates of criminality – like 7 – 8 TIMES the murder rate, and 4 times or more other violent crime rates. White on black interracial rape occurs with miniscule frequency; black on white rape happens with 1000x or more frequency per black male capita. Blacks have higher levels of testosterone for one thing. And a culture, or parts of black culture which get spread widely through lots of rap, that often glamorizes criminality. So yeah, low IQ blacks are definitely more of a threat, and less productive on average than low IQ whites. They’re often negatively productive.

For some reason, low IQ scores only count for those from another class or race. Thus the racism.

Randy said,”the idea that humans might develop divergent characteristics over tens of thousands of years of living in markedly diverse biomes seems plausible.”

A) That’s because selective breeding violates Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium is a measure of the change in allele frequency of a population–in short, microevolution. To maintain Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium these 5 factors would have to be in place:

1: No mutations.

2: No genetic drift.

3: No gene flow (immigration, put another way).
.
4: Large population size.

5: Random mating.

B) All humans, white, black, Asian, etc. belong to the same species–Homo sapiens!!! Ask any biologist.

And he would agree with you that black culture has been heavily shaped by white racism.

Black culture since the 1960s has been heavily shaped by white leftist intellectuals and media telling blacks they’re the victims of white racism, and that virtually all black achievement and other problems, stem from that ever continuing and pervasive white racism.

Whereas the racism you can actually hear on the streets comes much much more from blacks directed against honky, cracker, peckerwood, whitebread, etc. whites.

Endless excuse making for blacks, both by blacks themselves and white intellectuals and media. Before this went on black culture was in many ways in much better shape. The illegitimacy rate was much, much lower; poor black students had much more discipline and tried to learn more in school than they do now; black crime rates were much lower; and so on.

B) All humans, white, black, Asian, etc. belong to the same species–Homo sapiens!!! Ask any biologist.

So what?

Are you aware in biology race means a sub species? That is groups within the species that usually haven’t for some some sufficiently many generations, though they physically could, interbreed? Living in widely separated areas is the usual reason. Though inhabiting somewhat different ecosystems is another.

And often, what you’re seeing are simply the results of dormant genes manifesting themselves, rather than the evolutionary development of “new” traits.

The same thing has happened in natural human evolution. There are tons of traits or different amount of traits that are present in low frequency among a population, that if they become more selectively beneficial as the physical or probably especially man made environment changes, will become expressed at much higher frequency.

Hence a rise in IQ in some groups relative to others. High IQ was probably more beneficial in complex and stratified agricultural and city societies than in hunter gatherer ones.

Doug 1 on 2/12: Endless excuse making for blacks, both by blacks themselves and white intellectuals and media. Before this went on black culture was in many ways in much better shape. The illegitimacy rate was much, much lower; poor black students had much more discipline and tried to learn more in school than they do now; black crime rates were much lower; and so on
—-

Black women may now have a higher out-of-wedlock birth rate, but white women now have a higher abortion rate. If the issue is lack of discipline, then it would appear that white women are just as guilty.

Racism is the belief that one race is naturally better than another. It may or may not be hateful. It may or may not be true. Hatred and truth are not part of the definition, just the belief about races and their nature.

The book says that blacks have an average IQ about 15 points lower than whites and that even under the best circumstances (where all black children are brought up by white middle-class parents) the average black IQ would go up by only six points.

That is racist by definition. It may be perfectly true, but it is still racist. Murray and Herrnstein may not hate a single black person, but their book is still racist.

It is still racist even if “Black intellectuals and rabble rousers, leftists, and most blacks in general make that charge incredibly lightly.”

Black women may now have a higher out-of-wedlock birth rate, but white women now have a higher abortion rate. If the issue is lack of discipline, then it would appear that white women are just as guilty.

Since Doug didn’t answer your question yet, I’ll just say that my understanding is that a sub-species is black, white, or yellow. Or more accurately, Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. Maybe a better term here would be simply, “race”.

HUMAN “races” are not subspecies. You can say that you believe in the “biological reality” of race, but keep in mind that many biologist are rejecting that concept partly, if not wholly, bc of the way biology defines race.

Humans are a subspecies of Homo sapiens known as Homo sapiens sapiens. All the other members of the species such as Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens neanderthalis (which are sometimes classified as a separate species and sometimes as a subspecies of Homo Sapiens..) are extinct.

It did not take for too long before you got into the point: IT IS ABOUT THE RACE AND RACE ALONE.

Race is a cultural consept. Not a biological one. You and the shortest pygmi of Kamerun are the same race biologically, like it or not.😀

I know that it burns your behinds to be the same race as those guys but there you go. Like Uncle just pointed out, neaderthals and others are gone. We are the only humans left on this planet. Deal with it, boys, or aknowledge what you are: racists.

KKK guys and nazis are upfront racists. They believe in their idea. They are not making excuses. They are racists openly. But what interests me is this: why you need some sort of veil of pseudo science to cover your racism??

@ Sam. When everyone has had fun out arguing and making up stuff they will eventually be forced to come back to answer and address your original comment:

“…All attemps to classify, sample, categorize and sort humanbeings in separate classes and entities are attemps to create them vs us mindsets. The whole point is to create humans and non humans, better ones and not so good ones. The whole idea is to explain that there are us, the real humanbeings, and them, those who are not really humans in the same way as we are. Us vs them. In vs out. Good vs bad. Human vs non human.

If the truth is racist, then racism can’t be a bad thing. I think you need to examine that statement a little further, Abagond.

By the way, if some races are more intelligent than others, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are “better,” at least not from a biological standpoint. And I think real racism isn’t believing that population groups can differ in certain average characteristics, but rather refusing to treat people as individuals, and allowing your preconceived notions about their race to dictate the way that you treat them.

Race is a useless concept as far as it relates to personal relationships. At least it should be.

Abagond said: Racism is the belief that one race is naturally better than another. It may or may not be hateful. It may or may not be true. Hatred and truth are not part of the definition, just the belief about races and their nature.

Just to be clear, the term “racism” often has 2 distinct definitions, the first that people are differentiated into races with unique characteristics, and the second definition involves discrimination by people of one race towards another.

The first does not necessarily imply the second. These definitions are often commingled in discussions, resulting in ambiguity.

race realism – the belief that races are biologically real and not just social constructs.

racism – the belief that one race is naturally better than another. Not merely different, but better.

racial discrimination – acting on racist beliefs to favour one race over another.

The first two are beliefs about the world. They could be true or false. The last is moral. It is about how to act in the world. It does not necessarily follow from the other two.

For example, if you believe that all people are equal in the eyes of God regardless of their beauty, wealth or intelligence, that they all should have equal rights, then you could believe in racism and yet still think racial discrimination is morally wrong.

“This is an utterly false characterization of the book. They actually don’t pick on anyone. And yes they do talk about poor whites a lot in it. “

Wrong. It sees blacks, Latinos and poor whites as a threat to the country because of their low IQs, which in turn cause high rates of crime, violence, illegitimacy, poverty, etc. They will soon become a drain on society There is little the country can do about it, the book argues, but further limit immigration, end affirmative action and put the cognitive underclass behind walls and armed guards, which the book itself compares to reservations.

YET white Southerners, old people and the authors’s grandparents are not seen in this light at all despite their low IQs. Nor does the book see poor but beautiful white women who marry high-IQ men as a threat even though they directly damage the gene pool.

So, yes, it picks on people, particularly those of the “wrong” race or class. IQ is used as an excuse. It is not the true reason.

If the truth is racist, then racism can’t be a bad thing. I think you need to examine that statement a little further, Abagond. ..”

This is a highly misleading statement to make taken completely out of its original context. Its also quite disingenuous. Allow me to give you the proper context so that you can see this again:

Abagond“…The book says that blacks have an average IQ about 15 points lower than whites and that even under the best circumstances (where all black children are brought up by white middle-class parents) the average black IQ would go up by only six points.

That is racist by definition. It may be perfectly true, but it is still racist…”

The statement …”it may be perfectly true”… refers specifically to IQ tests. NOT to racism specifically!

We are the only humans left on this planet. Deal with it, boys, or aknowledge what you are: racists.

That’s the gist of it , isn’t it? They do-not want to admit they are racists. When I have posed this question online and in real life, no-one could give me an explanation. The reactions to this question in real life, were comical actually! Why not? As for the good ol ‘Political Correction’ clarion call, I ask similar questions, why is it political correctness when someone has an opinion or set of beliefs which are different from your own? Is that used to shut people down for whom you do not agree with?

There’s no need to be so defensive here. I was just trying to understand exactly what Abagond was getting at. His explanation makes a lot of sense. Racism (as he defines it) is a fact- it is demonstrably true or false. If you believe that one race is better than another, by applying whatever standards you see fit, then it follows that racism can be “true” or “false.”

I don’t like this definition of racism myself, but I suppose that it is the correct use of the word. When I think of racism I think of racial discrimination, as do most people. And I think that we can all agree (at least I hope that we can all agree) that this kind of “racism” is wrong.

As far as the first definition that he gives- “race realism”- I hate to admit it, but I would probably have to put myself in that category as I believe that races, as generally understood, most likely do differ in some meaningful ways. I hate to admit that since it’s what you so often hear from white nationalist types, who so often go from race realism (whites are different from blacks) to racism (whites are better than blacks), and use those beliefs to justify racial discrimination (let’s get rid of those horrible, inferior blacks/ mexicans/ Jews…whatever).

I don’t personally agree that any race could be better than another, since I’m not sure what standards to apply to make such a judgment.

Getting defensive is not the issue. Misrepresentation is the issue. Its one thing to seek understanding its another to deliberately or otherwise attempt to distort actual statements. Something if it was not your intent you would be quick to concede or offer apologies for.

Neither of which occupied your last response.

On the subject of racism as Abagond’s defining it. As I understand it. Racism is first and foremost a BELIEF:

“…the belief that one race is naturally better than another. Not merely different, but better…”

If you hold the belief according to the definition then it will always be TRUE. There is no TRUE or FALSE logic here to pursue. Its quite simple. You believe or you do not believe?

Anything else you choose to believe beyond this will obviously be shaped, coloured or influenced by that belief.

As numerous posters holding onto the FALSE belief are all to willing and able to demonstrate commentary wise!

Perhaps it might be useful to ponder some more on some of those other help definitions Abagond supplied.

Black women may now have a higher out-of-wedlock birth rate, but white women now have a higher abortion rate. If the issue is lack of discipline, then it would appear that white women are just as guilty.

Completely and totally wrong.

The abortion rate per capita among black women is almost 5x higher than among white women. However because there are 6x more white women in the US, the do have a greater total number of abortions. By virtue of being a lot more numerous.

It sees blacks, Latinos and poor whites as a threat to the country because of their low IQs, which in turn cause high rates of crime, violence, illegitimacy, poverty, etc. They will soon become a drain on society There is little the country can do about it, the book argues, but further limit immigration, end affirmative action and put the cognitive underclass behind walls and armed guards, which the book itself compares to reservations.

I downloaded a pirate copy of the book and I couldn’t find anything about placing lower IQ people in reservations. What pages or sections are you referring to..? Or do you believe it is implied..? A review of recent articles by Murray would suggest that he believes cognitive elites exist and and they are divorced from members of society that effectively do not fit into their caste. I get the impression that he think societal stratification is a bad thing:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102202873.html?sid=ST2010102204725

Here’s a quote from the book page 270-271: “The first thing to remember is that the differences among individuals are far greater than the differences between groups. If all the ethnic differences in intelligence evaporated overnight, most of the intellectual variation in America would endure. The remaining inequality would still strain the political process, because differences in cognitive ability are problematic even in ethnically homogeneous societies.”

YET white Southerners, old people and the authors’s grandparents are not seen in this light at all despite their low IQs. Nor does the book see poor but beautiful white women who marry high-IQ men as a threat even though they directly damage the gene pool.

What is the average IQs of White Southerners, poor but beautiful White women, or his grandparents..? We do not know.. nor does the book discuss them. For that matter he doesn’t mention beautiful Thai women (from a country where the average IQ is allegedly 91) even though his first wife was Thai. Patterson appears to be using a false dilemma since the book doesn’t seek to preserve or uphold any group based upon perceived aesthetics, age, or regional original. At least not that I could find.

Overall I find Sowell’s and Gardner’s critiques to be much more on target than Patterson’s.

and put the cognitive underclass behind walls and armed guards, which the book itself compares to reservations.

Give us a quote in context. You’re twisting it bad.

I read the book quite a long time ago, but I’d like to see you produce a quote the demonstrates it advocated this. I’m sure it didn’t. I’m sure it said something the lines of that these would not be acceptable “solutions.”

More recently Murray has advocates eduction for the less intelligent that better meets their needs after the basics of learning to read and write and do arithmetic and maybe simple word problem algebra. By yes teaching practical skills and trade skills.

I believe Abagond is saying that is Patterson’s opinion of the book… I downloaded a PDF of the book and I couldn’t find anything (using the search tool) that said lower IQ Blacks and Whites should be walled off or placed on reservation. Maybe I am missing something.

If the truth is racist, then racism can’t be a bad thing. I think you need to examine that statement a little further, Abagond.

I completely agree.

Well I agree that this kind of so called “racism”, in the vastly expanded definition the left and blacks are now using, can’t be a bad thing. That is to say race realism aka HBD isn’t a bad thing, so long as it sticks to the facts or scientific evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence.

By the way, if some races are more intelligent than others, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are “better,” at least not from a biological standpoint. And I think real racism isn’t believing that population groups can differ in certain average characteristics, but rather refusing to treat people as individuals, and allowing your preconceived notions about their race to dictate the way that you treat them.

I agree with this too, and always have.

Except I restate you last phrase thus: and allowing your views about the average characteristics of their race, scientifically well informed or not, to dictate how you treat individuals of that race.

There’s more variation on almost all traits within a race than there is between them.

Average traits have some use in evaluating differences in group results. There not good for evaluating individuals.

Do you think Eastern Euros & Western Euros are of the same race and/or subspecies? What about Nelson Mandela and the late Kwame Nkrumah?

Asking how many races there are is like asking how many neighborhoods there are in you city. They can be divided into big clumps or small ones, coarsely or more finely. A a certain point of fineness there’s no utility in it.

First of all I don’t call different human groups sub-species and I’ve never seen any HBD or race realist intellectual do so either. People would find it insulting and that’s not my intent. I was making a point about how biologists sometimes use race as interchangeable with subspecies for species or than humans. In biology a subspecies are divisions in a species that can mate with each other but usually don’t, or only do at clinal junctures where the differences are blurred and merge into each other, typically.

The examples you asked me about are both in broadly the same race, but their are ancestral differences. If one was dividing very finely, different European groups can be divided into slight different ancestral or racial groups. But the main differences are definitely cultural, with that merging more and more these days too. There’s for a very long time been an lot of European intermarried as groups migrated and conquered or were conquered, etc.

The concept of three races, Caucasian, Oriental and African is a very outdated one that’s not used scientifically now at all. It leaves lots of people out, such as AmerIndians, and lumps some very differentiated groups together, especially under “Oriental”. Indians and NE Asias for example are widely different.

Stanford’s Luigi Cavalli-Sforza is the dean of investigating “The History and Geography of Human Genes”.

1) Caucasian (which includes Europe, Western Asia and N. Africa (though there’s a substantial minority of ssAfrican genes there too),

2) sub Saharan African,

3) South East Asian

4) North East Asian

5) Austronesian (Aust. Aborigines, Papuans, and Melanesian)

6) Amerindians.

Asian Indians seem to be a mixture of those that became Austronesians later on (as they moved out of Africa beachcombing around the Indian Ocean and then into SE Asia, New Guinea and Australia), those that became SE Asians, and Caucasians from Iran (the Aryans of the Bahgavad Gita etc.). With that much mixture they could be considered a 7th principal race.

Of course Amerindians vary quite widely and can be subdivided. Western and Eastern Africans vary a good bit and can be considered different sub races. Koisans or Bushmen aren’t very numerous any more (this was mostly the work of the Bantu arriving somewhat after the Dutch Europeans in South Africa, but also of the Afrikaners, both of whom drove them to marginal semi desert lands), but could be added as a 7 or 8th principal race, in terms of genetic distance and time of splitting off.

Just to be clear, the term “racism” often has 2 distinct definitions, the first that people are differentiated into races with unique characteristics, and the second definition involves discrimination by people of one race towards another.

The first does not necessarily imply the second. These definitions are often commingled in discussions, resulting in ambiguity.

This is not some innocent confusion or ambiguity. It’s a deliberate tactic to enforce political correctness, double think and double speak, and leftist social policies. Such as not effectively restricting mass illegal immigration of lowest slice heavily Amerindian Mexicans and Central Americans.

It’s standard practice of the left and among most blacks to 1) spit out “racist” at any informed realist who makes statements and prescriptions falling under the first definition and then 2) demand a retraction or a firing or resignation or utter shunning from elite or big megaphone society (“he’s a racist”), by implying it means he also falls under the second definition. Which was the original 60s and 70s widely accepted definition that first got a consensus of American society to agree “racism” is a bad thing. That never would have happened then under the current ridiculously expanded definition.

Now people don’t even dare say in public “well what if it’s true that blacks are on average significantly less intelligent, and that a lot but not all of the reason why is genetics”?

Back in the day the mainstream liberal attitude was – well lets try removing gross discrimination cause it’s the right thing to do and then maybe we’ll find out. Well we have, but now it’s called racist to say we HAVE found out.

Race is a cultural consept. Not a biological one. You and the shortest pygmi of Kamerun are the same race biologically, like it or not.

Wrong.

The race of a person can be determined with a high degree of both certainty and fineness of detail from DNA sample analysis. It can also be determined with fine level of detail (sub sub race etc.) by forensic and other physical anthropologists from dry bones.

Let me repeat, ALL HUMANS BELONG IN THE SAME SPECIES!!! Race is made up. What you’re referring to is something different, like a population of deer, or a strain of bacteria.

Let me give you some references from a college biology textbook,

Biology 8th ed.

Campbell, Reece.

Pearson-Benjamin Cummings.

1301 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94111

Copyright 2008.

1) “A population is a group of individuals of the same species that live in the same area and interbreed, producing fertile offspring. Different populations of a single species may be isolated geographically from one another, thus exchanging genetic material only rarely. Such isolation is common for species that live on widely separated islands or in different lakes. But not all populations are isolated, nor must populations have sharp boundaries. Still, members of a population typically breed with one another and thus on average are more closely related to teach other than to member of other populations.” (472)

2) “As diverse as we may be in appearance, all humans belong to a single biological species (Homo sapiens), defined by our capacity to interbreed.” (488)

3) Stanford’s Luigi Cavalli-Sforza’s opinions about race have changed over time: “The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.”–(Wikipedia)

Doug1 said,”It’s a deliberate tactic to enforce political correctness, double think and double speak, and leftist social policies. Such as not effectively restricting mass illegal immigration of lowest slice heavily Amerindian Mexicans and Central Americans. ”

1) Your last sentence was not grammatically correct. It’s a dependent clause.

2) It seems like Doug1 has something against Mexicans and Central Americans to purposefully single them out. I hope you know that illegal Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and other immigrants also reside in the U.S., not to mention illegal Canadians. There are also Americans who have been deported out of Canada who have overstayed their visit.

3) Stanford’s Luigi Cavalli-Sforza’s opinions about race have changed over time: “The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.”–(Wikipedia)

Cavalli-Sforza was never remotely a racist within any reasonable definition of that term, and was never considered one by most of Academia. He has a ton of very academically respectable proteges who are extending his work.
Some on the far left have called him racist and sought to have his work defunded, basically just for investigating race and demonstrating that it very definitely has a scientific genetically traceable reality. In his work he doesn’t use the word race, obviously because that is politically charged. He instead calls races which he traces and differentiates by genetics, geographic populations in all his writing to diffuse the issue.

CS was (he’s real old now) interested in tracing the earliest history and geographic spread of homo sapiens sapiens (humans) and the timing and location of their spilling off into notably differentiated human populations (aka races).

He doesn’t investigate different traits like average levels of intelligence in human groups. For one thing his genetic methods aren’t suited for that purpose.

As for what you quoted, he throws up a lot of squid ink in his introductions and statements to the press. He wants to keep working. He definitely never has had any discriminatory intent whatsoever.

If Cavalli-Sforza was such a good and honest man that did pioneering scientific research into race, then why have his ideas not been widely accepted by most scientists. After all, Charles Darwin was able to convince almost all biologists in his time period about evolution, even though it was such a controversial idea.

The work done for this book is some 20-30 years old now, and genomic technology and methods had advanced a ton since then. But it’s a striking picture.

More recent work shows NE and SE Asians as much more differentiated than this colored map suggests, for one thing.

More recent work looks at active areas of the genome which do differentially generate human traits, rather than easier to measure and work with inactive or junk areas which are in some ways better for estimating when human groups split, that is stopped intrabreeding much and began to differentiate.

Indeed. Which is one of the reasons why HBD has failed to gain much traction in the mainstream, so far. A shame, really, since if we are to co-exist as fellow citizens, we must understand the origins and the nature of our differences so as to be able to accomodate each other.

2) It seems like Doug1 has something against Mexicans and Central Americans to purposefully single them out.

What I have against them is that they don’t do very well here on average, including unto the 4th generation. They drop out of high school even by the 4th generation at a similar rate to blacks. They tend to be a net drain on the government, rather than net taxpayers (taxes net of government benefits). They have rates of crime intermediate between blacks and whites. (The Asians we let in and their children have lower rates than whites.)

And yeah they have a low average IQ. They typically come from the bottom and more Amerindian slices of Mexican and Central American society.

To a lesser degree I also dislike their extreme tendency to not assimilate much at all, or anyway not in good ways. Reconquista is not some tiny fringe Mexican and Mexican American hope and even expectation, on present trends.

“…I wondered where Homo sapiens came from and where they went? Or should we just forget about them? Assuming they even did exist in the first place!

Is this a rhetorical question..? I had thought you were familiar with the theories of human evolution but perhaps do not accept the theories. If you are not familiar I can post some links…”

Yes. It was meant to be a rhetorical question. And yes I am familiar with the theories of human evolution – and NO I do not accept them:

(1) Due to there highly speculative and sparsely scientific nature and;

(2) Due to there dubious and highly suspected racist foundations of Darwinian laws of “natural selection”

This paragraph in wikipedia sets the basis for (1)

Origin of life

Further information: Abiogenesis and RNA world hypothesis

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[239] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[240] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[241][242] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[243] and the assembly of simple cells.[244]

Further it’s not based on a science. It’s based on Marxist-Communist ideology, brought to the US primarily by the New Left or cultural Marxists. It was NEVER well supported by the scientific evidence. What passed for scientific support in the early days e.g. the 30s and 50s, was scientific debunking of some of the more outlandish and extreme previous racial difference claims, usually made by non scientists.

Don’t misunderstand me. Blacks/Africans are better than whites/Euros on some things as well on average. West Africans can sprint faster at the top extremes as the last 4 olympics have shown. They can jump higher. They have a higher proportion of fast twitch as opposed to slow twitch muscle fiber in their legs. West Africans appear to have a better rhythmic sense than Euros which is reflected in their music.

I don’t think that expanding the definition of racism to make it a morally neutral term is a good idea. “Race realism” is a perfectly good term for such an outlook.

Racism, very specifically, means morally wrong words and/or actions directed at someone (an individual or a group) solely on the basis of their race. This is the original meaning of the term, and we (we the people) aren’t doing ourselves any favors by trying to fuck with it.

“The race of a person can be determined with a high degree of both certainty and fineness of detail from DNA sample analysis.”

For example? Site your source please.

Henry Louis Gates, the head of the African American studies department at Yale, uses DNA results to determine with a good degree of accuracy the percentage of white ancestry individual African Americans have. He even did a PBS mini series based upon his informing volunteers of the results, and talking about it with them and so on. iirc, he even told them where in Africa their black ancestors came from in some cases (where that wasn’t all mixed together).

I was mocking his question. He was asking which human groups were species and which were sub species. Which is nonsensical. Sub here doesn’t mean less than, of course. It means a subdivision within the same species.

“There is little the country can do about it, the book argues, but further limit immigration, end affirmative action and put the cognitive underclass behind walls and armed guards, which the book itself compares to reservations.”

Sorry, this was misleading.

All three (limit immigration, end affirmative action, reservations) fit into the point I was making in that paragraph about the cognitive underclass of blacks, Latinos and poor whites being pictured as a threat to the country. But the way I stated it made the last one about reservations sound like a policy recommendation, which it is not. Instead it is the country’s likely future if nothing is done:

“In short, by custodial state, we have in mind a high-tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation’s population, while the rest of America tries to go about its business.”

That is the last page of chapter 21. As you can see, the word “reservation” is used.

Blacks, Latinos and poor whites are most certainly pictured as part of that “substantial minority” while middle-class white Southerners and old people, as far as I know, are not.

I’ve done the research over a period of time for everything I assert as a scientific fact or finding. I just don’t remember all the sources.

But I googled them for king and calculator anyway. And recalled from memory Henry Louis Gates using DNA to tell curious black individuals how much white ancestry they have and doing a PBS mini series on it.

In contrast few of the assertions by commentors who are opponents of race realism here have been well supported, or supported at all by reference to specific facts or studies and so on.

“I don’t think that expanding the definition of racism to make it a morally neutral term is a good idea. “Race realism” is a perfectly good term for such an outlook.

Racism, very specifically, means morally wrong words and/or actions directed at someone (an individual or a group) solely on the basis of their race. This is the original meaning of the term, and we (we the people) aren’t doing ourselves any favors by trying to fuck with it.”

I completely disagree:

I am the one going by the dictionary definition, I am the one who is not screwing up its meaning. The Oxford dictionary says racism is:

“each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities that distinguish it as inferior or superior to another such group.”

It is White Americans who have narrowed the word to mean just racial discrimination, violence and hatred. That allows them to leave their racist BELIEFS unexamined. It allows them to think they are not racist.

To say that racist beliefs are not a part of racism is like saying the roots of a tree are not part of the tree.

Did I say that I didn’t know how to use Google for this sort of thing? I am, however, somewhat surprised that you have to google something that you have so forcefully asserted. I would have assumed that you were aware of a ready example, based on your eh… enthusiasm.

Where you unaware that the company [DNAPrint Genomics] responsible for the “race-based” DNA research highlighted in your article has suddenly, and quite inexplicably, ceased operations for undisclosed reasons? And were you aware that the same has been out of business since 2009, never to return?

I am the one going by the dictionary definition, I am the one who is not screwing up its meaning. The Oxford dictionary says racism is:

“each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities, or qualities that distinguish it as inferior or superior to another such group.”

It is White Americans who have narrowed the word to mean just racial discrimination, violence and hatred. That allows them to leave their racist BELIEFS unexamined. It allows them to think they are not racist.

The last paragraph is completely wrong. Some white and Asian realists are trying to roll back the definition to what it used to be a few decades ago.

This definition is subject to lots of wiggle room. Is that supposed to mean a belief that all or almost all members of that race had those specific characteristics or abilities or levels of them, or that on average that’s the case? The former used to be required in definitions of racism. Just noticing any statistic differences or thinking matter in explaining social phenomenon and guiding social policy in some cases is being called racism by leftist academia and the left/liberal media and most blacks for a couple of decades now.

The Merriam Webster (a better dictionary for American English) definition of racism is this:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

As little as two decades ago a desire to carry out the second used to also always be required. Racial bigotry and hate or disdain used to also generally be required. The left through the media and academia has been shifting the definition, to enforce political correctness and double think and speak. A la 1984.

As for the first defination, all race realist or HBD intellectuals and scientist agree that there is more variation within races than between them on such capacities as IQ, so the definitely don’t think it’s race is the primary determinant of e.g. IQ. This is true as well of hereditarians, who believe that genes play a larger role in IQ differences between races than culture/environment do. That’s because genes for intelligence vary more widely within races they believe, than between them.

So race realists (who aren’t KKK or Stormfront racists adopting some of that terminology as a cloak) don’t meet the first Merriam Webster definition of being racists either.

As well being better on one thing on average doesn’t mean a race is superior on all things.

Where you unaware that the company [DNAPrint Genomics] responsible for the “race-based” DNA research highlighted in your article has suddenly, and quite inexplicably, ceased operations for undisclosed reasons? And were you aware that the same has been out of business since 2009, never to return?

This is ridiculous.

No I wasn’t aware. I’d never heard of them before. There are numerous companies and labs that do DNA testing. What you linked to indicates that what this particular company had were profit problems. Cheaper competitors perhaps.

Using essentially the same science, DNAPrint helped Oprah Winfrey, Whoopi Goldberg, Quincy Jones and Chris Tucker trace their lineage back to Africa for the four-part PBS series, African American Lives. It’s also how, days after the body of 26-year-old Carrie Lynn Yoder was found at Whiskey Bay, Frudakis was able to conclude to a statistical certainty that the killer was black.

Yeah it works.

But it’s a tough business due to government competition and political correctness, and the incorrect dogma that race is just a social construct. (Yeah it’s partly a social construct, the one drop rule enforced for a long time mostly by whites and now mostly by blacks, for example.):

Nevertheless, DNAPrint is still floundering. He says the National Institutes for Justice denied his grant application because it believed that this is work that should be left to the government. It’s not clear that the company will be in business a year from now, or even six months.
“Forensics stinks as a business,” Frudakis says bluntly. “Most of the testing is done by government labs with very little opportunity for private enterprise. If people valued what we did more, we would have the funds to expand the databases, learn about more phenotypes, develop more genetic screens, build more software systems.”

Frudakis still hopes that the company will be able to invest in more research. RETINOME which predicts iris color with 96 percent accuracy is on the market and was used very effectively in the Napa murder case. He has identified the gene sequences associated with height, and has compiled a database of 5000 digital photographs of people with almost every racial ancestry combination — which, one day, he says could allow him to construct a physical portrait of a DNA donor, including melanin content, skin color or eye color.

Which leads many in law enforcement to shy away from using it, especially as controversy spread:

But even the people one might think should be his biggest allies aren’t supporting that, including Tony Clayton, the special prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases. Clayton, who is black, admits that he initially dismissed Frudakis as some white guy trying to substantiate his racist views. He no longer believes that and says “had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pick-up truck.” But then he adds, “We’ve been taught that we’re all the same, that we bleed the same blood. If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you’re saying we are inherently unequal.”

He continues: “If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would.”

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination “

To me racism is #1, which often leads to #2. In my experience most black people think racism can be #1 or #2 (with #2 being way worse, but not to fool ourselves about the nature of #1) while most white people think it is JUST #2. You can tell because when you call a white person a racist they get highly upset, like you just called them a liar or something. So they clearly think it is a just a moral term, not one about honest differences of opinion.

Race realism is not necessarily racist. Noticing races and their differences is not in itself racist. Both Oxford and Merriam-Webster agree that in addition there has to be an idea of superiority. On that score, “The Bell Curve” is clearly racist.

“No I wasn’t aware. I’d never heard of them before. There are numerous companies and labs that do DNA testing. What you linked to indicates that what this particular company had were profit problems. Cheaper competitors perhaps.”

No, what I linked to indicates a pattern of dishonesty and questionable conduct. I give you, their investors…

“# 2 Joni Fisher Says:
March 5th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
So, how do we get our money back?

Joni Fisher’s last blog post..DNAPrint Genomics Ceases Operations”

I suppose not

“# 3 Ripped Off Says:
March 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I paid $690.00 through Paypal. I received the kits for two tests and sent them in but have not received results. Because the time period for genetic testing can be 8-12 weeks, it is beyond the time frame to dispute a transaction with either PayPal or Bank of America (where the funds came from in my case) by the time you know you did not receive the results/product. I was advised by Bank of America to file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center which is a partnership with the FBI, National White Collar Crime Center, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance via http://www.ic3.gov. I would ask that others do the same so that DNAPrint Genomics would receive some attention from this agency.”

This was NEVER an above-board and reputable company.

“I was ALSO apparently ripped off by DNAprint–for $860!! I’ve been waiting for results from 2 kits sent in in January ‘09. When there was no confirmation of receipt of the kits, I smelled a rat. Couldn’t reach a soul there, and now I know why! Thanks for the info about who to contact. Hopefully we can get the money back somehow!

Good luck to you,
Maggie”

The problem was not cheaper competitors, but a lack of honesty and a drive to make money at any cost. I would not have used them as an example, if I were you.

The book doesn’t argue that whites are in all ways superior to blacks. It does present evidence and argue that they do have higher average intelligence, and a higher percentage of people above a certain IQ threshold such as 115 (good college graduate) or 130 (usually necessary to be a high end professional). It also presents evidence that higher IQ tends to lead to higher incomes in our technological and complex society and is associated with lower violent criminality. It also argues in one chapter out of more than 20 that the black / white racial differences in IQ is probably between 40 and 60% due to genetics.

If the truth can be racist, then an absurd definition of racism is being used.

Regardless of how you use racism, the term essentially always denotes a moral failing, and a very shameful and terrible moral failing.

However the left sucks people into being called racist by them saying that racial differences play a large role in some achievement gaps and similar, or even just noticing them and saying so publicly if the person is white and especially a white male, and then spits them out of elite society unless they grovel and retract by imputing a discriminatory, irrationally prejudiced, bigoted moral failing on them.

This is the stock in trade of the left and most influential blacks for the last couple of decades, and in the most leftist circles a good lot longer than that.

I understand they [race realists] say human beings are different in this and that or whatever, but how do they know what to categorize these people? Where does one group begin and another end? What do they mean by “White” and “Black.” I am sure they believe that race is a biological reality, but how do they know what populations to group with each other? For instance…

I think it’s more accurate to say you don’t want to understand.

Races can be divided coarsely or finely. Really fine division is usually pointless; culture tends to be what accounts almost entirely for differences at that level of division.

The major geographic races don’t have sharp boundaries where they meet geographically, if they are separated by hard to cross deserts or oceans. They also don’t have sharp boundaries after awhile where there’s in fact a whole lot of interbreeding going on. Then you get a lot of mixed race people with intermediate average characteristics where those vary racially.

2. “Lewontin is a Marxist ideologue” is an ad hominem fallacy. Even Marxist ideologues can be right some of the times. Or is it all right for me to reject all peer-reviewed science done by, say, Republicans or Methodists?

Yeah you’re right about that in general. But he in particular really can’t be trusted.

Some things he’s said have been broadly right though. He argues that only 15% of the genetic differences in people occur between races and rest within them. There’s more or less broad agreement on that, or something like that, among human geneticists, leaving aside the specific number.

(Though typical of Lewontin he arrived at the number many years ago by a crude form of DNA analysis that didn’t take into account the definitely frequently occurring combining effects of DNA differences between races, or even mentioning that this was possible. Lewontin tendentiously only mentions stuff favorable to his political argument in this area. That’s not what such race realist scientists do, or those writing meta reviews of scientific results such as Hernstein and Murray do. )

As well leftist intellectuals make ad hominem arguments on the order of 100x more often than centrist or rightist ones do, particularly those in academia.

If it is all right for you to dismiss Lewontin as a Marxist ideologue, then it should be all right for me to dismiss the “The Bell Curve” because Charles Murray as a Republican ideologue.

That’s more or less what you’ve done here in your post in chief. Only you’ve dismissed him for being a (white) racist, using Orlando Paterson’s commentary as your guide.

Plus that’s done all the freakin time by the left. Though the words conservative or right wing or “racially motivated” or racist are more often used.

After all there are almost as many Republicans as democrats. Inside the academy and the left being called a Republican is damning, but not among the public or even book and media reading public at large.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that under American conditions blacks are on average 1) around 1 standard deviation or 15 points less smart than whites and 2) that around 60% of the reason for that is genetic differences on average, would saying so be racist?

Some argue that Americans and Euros think smarter = superior.

What if instead of 2) being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is shown that whatever the relative contributions of nature and nurture, that the IQ gap has proven to be highly intractable as children get older despite a wide variety of efforts made to try to close it over the last 40 years and more?

Leftists and blacks suck realists and conservatives 1) into being called “racist” by one very broad definition and 2) then spit them out by branding them by another, older definition.

They suck PC transgressors in for 1) saying that some differences in black (or other “disadvantaged minority) achievement are due to racial differences on average such as in IQ, and then 2) spit them out as “racists” who are bigoted, irrationally prejudiced, dying to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, and morally contemptible.

I already read your comments and I completely understand them. What you seem to not understand is HOW scientist cluster populations into our classical definitions of continental races and what these population clusters mean. Unfortunately I cannot force you to understand, so hopefully you will keep reading the race and genomics link I posted until you do.

“Henry Louis Gates, the head of the African American studies department at Yale, uses DNA results to determine with a good degree of accuracy the percentage of white ancestry individual African Americans have. He even did a PBS mini series based upon his informing volunteers of the results, and talking about it with them and so on. iirc, he even told them where in Africa their black ancestors came from in some cases (where that wasn’t all mixed together).”

Make me think that you did not read/understand this:

“A clustering of populations that does correspond to classical continental “races” can be acheived by using a special class of non-functional DNA, microsatellites. By selecting among microsatellites, it is possible to find a set that will cluster together African populations, European populations, and Asian populations, etc. These selected microsatellite DNA markers are not typical of genes, however, but have been chosen precisely because they are “maximally informative” about group differences. Thus, they tell us what we already knew about the differences between populations of the classical “races” from skin color, face shape, and hair form. They have the added advantage of allowing us to make good estimates of the amount of intermixture that has occurred between populations as a result of migrations and conquests.”

Large sample size studies have shown that black children from families earning in the top quartile have lower SAT scores than white children of families earning in the lowest. How can the reason for that be environmental? Which has generally meant SES status. It’s possible that it’s cultural, but very unlikely that it’s only that. And this tends to show it’s pretty immutable.

The reasons are probably mostly these two: 1) genetic regression something like halfway from the parent’s average IQ to their ancestral mean; and 2) affirmative action giving not such high IQ parents top quartile incomes. Regress below enough IQ and affirmative action no longer kicks in.

Oh and this is a good long post on the leading human genetics blog, that does a meta review of the scientific evidence for what Watson said most of all, but in effect for the evidence that blacks are less smart than whites to a significant degree on average, and that it’s probably very significantly but certainly not close to entirely for genetic reasons.

Why did you change the subject from human genetic variation to race & IQ before addressing my last comment? It seems like kind of a cop out to me. Btw you still haven’t answered my questions on the Asian American IQ comment section. If you want to continue this IQ debate please go back to the Asian American IQ blog post and answer my questions there. After that we can discuss what you just posted

As i’ve know from the get go. Except the “it’s possible” language is a smokescreen. The tone is completely wrong. The parts of the genome chosen were chosen so as to best show the time of human groups splitting apart (in the sense of no longer interbreeding much) and that they did in fine detail. That’s certainly true. As I’ve known for about 8 years, since discovering Cavalli Sforza, through GNXP I think it was.

They weren’t chosen to show black or third world “inferiority” or lower IQ.

Genomics is galloping forward. The technology is getting stronger very quickly. Active and consequential areas of the human genome are now being compared between different human groups. Some intelligence increasing genetic alleles are found in caucasians and east asians according to the research of one leading Chinese American geneticist in a peer reviewed journal. Research which has been accepted and acclaimed among geneticists.

Basically the problem that far and some other leftists have Cavalli-Sforza’s and his followers (among many other’s) work is that he puts a lie to the claim of the far left that “race does not exist — it’s only a social and not biological construct”.

“Some intelligence increasing genetic alleles are found in caucasians and east asians according to the research of one leading Chinese American geneticist in a peer reviewed journal. Research which has been accepted and acclaimed among geneticists.”

Who is the Chinese-American geneticist? And you better pray that he’s not actually a famous Chinese-American physicist and not a geneticist at all.

“Some intelligence increasing genetic alleles are found in caucasians and east asians according to the research of one leading Chinese American geneticist in a peer reviewed journal. Research which has been accepted and acclaimed among geneticists.”

This is wrong. I remember reading about Bruce Lahn and it was never confirmed that the mutations he found common w/in those populations were associated with intelligence. All he found was that his estimates of a mutation coincided with the development of cities and written language. The end. All he did was take estimates of a mutation and associate it with intelligence without any proof. You are taking his unproven HYPOTHESIS and running with it. Also keep in mind that Asians didn’t score on the top of these mutations.

“Dr. Lahn has drawn sharp fire from other leading genetics researchers. They say the genetic differences he found may not signify any recent evolution — and even if they do, it is too big a leap to suggest any link to intelligence. “This is not the place you want to report a weak association that might or might not stand up,” says Francis Collins, director of the genome program at the National Institutes of Health.

@Doug1
Again our debate on Race & IQ was on the Asian American post. I wish to keep it their so we don’t have information scattered and end up repeating our individual points. I would also like for you to address the debate exactly where we left off.

@King
His name is Bruce Lahn. He is(possibly was) a professor of genetics at the University of Chicago. I recently pointed out why Doug’s statement is incorrect here:

What’s fascinating is that two or three years after the Bell Curve came out, researchers at Washington University in Saint Louis, (using the VERY SAME longitudinal database that Murray and Ernstein used for their research) which had demonstrated this persistent IQ gap between whites and blacks, looked at the same data and were able to take what Murray and Erstein didn’t mention in their book from the data.

What they discovered was that when African Americans in the US go to college, they raise their IQ FOUR TIMES FASTER than whites who go to college, and in the process close the average IQ gap between whites and blacks in half in just 4 years. This would not be possible is IQ was fundamentally related to biology, and yet it was EXACTLY (going by the very database that Murray and Erstein used) actually demonstrated.

So Doug1…in case I lost you, there goes the entire argument of your book, and every single related study. (I have other irrefutable ways to dismantle this book and such studies, that I could use in a heartbeat. But…that would just be pounding the red stain on the ground that USED TO BE the dead horse.)

Also, Doug1, if you had even a pedestrian level of knowledge when it comes to genetics, and didn’t rely on crtl+c and crtl+v, you would know “the exact reason” why race IS a social construct. Not because it’s some “feel good slogan” or whatever “logic riot shield” dismissal you and your fellow HBD’ers like to prop up, to use against your opponents; but the proven fact that you and your ilk like to skate around, and ignore.

I’ll take it slow for you, starting with “Fst”.

“Fst”, is a statistical measurement of the fraction of a variation found between samples.

There is substantial and unequivocal evidence that there is currently only one race, or subspecies, of human on the planet: Homo sapiens sapiens. Humans do not show enough genetic variability within populations for any given population to be categorized as a subspecies. The level of genetic differentiation required to classify a population (or group of populations) as a subspecies is an Fst greater than 0.25. Multiple studies of a variety of segments of DNA in humans clearly demonstrate that this level IS NOT REACHED in humans, even in mtDNA.

Human Fst scores average about 0.17, WELL UNDER the subspecies mark. On a molecular level where we (researchers) study and learn, this range is staggeringly wide. It is also extremely important to note that there is not a single unique genetic marker that can be used to differentiate the “big few” races; that is, there are no Asian, Black, or White genes or alleles. Since there are groups that share multiple “core” traits with the big three, that are identical to them, on a molecular level.

You know nothing about this thread (let alone genetics), so please click that red “X” and let the adults talk.

This is wrong. I remember reading about Bruce Lahn and it was never confirmed that the mutations he found common w/in those populations were associated with intelligence. All he found was that his estimates of a mutation coincided with the development of cities and written language. The end. All he did was take estimates of a mutation and associate it with intelligence without any proof. You are taking his unproven HYPOTHESIS and running with it. Also keep in mind that Asians didn’t score on the top of these mutations.

How much Occam’s razor ( a bedrock principle of science) do you knead? An infinite amount it seems, race man.

the question remains: why you want to veil your racism behind pseudo science? Why do you feel the need the hide behind some mumbo jumbo statistical jibberish, which we all know to be a load of BS?

It has been shown again and again that your grand parents generation scored about the same as do blacks today in IQ tests. So, were they as dumb as those friggin black parasites and if so then howcome you do not separate them from your race??😀 After all, you are saying that blacks are dumber and this has been proven by IQ tests and this proves they are not the same race as you are…

Wait a minute! Does this mean, that your grandparents and other whites who scored as bad as blacks today, were actually blacks? Goddammit!! I did not know that!😀

I see from your posts that now you have dragged politics in general into this debate. From that I gather that you are a simple man. Anybody who knows anything about the political history knows that in the extreme left racism and racial superiority was at the core of the whole belief system. You don’t belive that? Well, my friend, get to know about national socialism. You might be surprised😀

And on that note, it is so funny that when you run out of arguments, you whip out the leftist card!😀 It is ok for you if a guy is a rightwing conservative nut job, but if he is not in your liking, you label him as a leftist and there fore useless. That is hilarious, man!😀

Doug, be a man. Be a racist, not a whiner. That is my advice to you. Your life will be much more easier once you accept yourself as what you are: a racist. You will have no need for these kind of ridicilous debates and even more ridicilous “scientific” agruments. You can state openly and straight out that you belive in racism and you belive in racial superiority. Try it, man! You might like it!😀

And once again: what is it that feeds this need to separate humans from another? Why would anybody with any intelligence waste his/hers time to try to prove that there is more than one human race on this planet? What purpose that serves?

Those alleles that Bruce Lahn discovered are most likely associated with brain function, as they are variants of the microcephalin gene. Further research has shown that they are also positively selected, so we know that they have a benefit on reproduction.

Research by Phillipe Rushton, who many here would call a racist scientist, did not find any correlation between these genes and IQ or brain size. So what do they do? We don’t know. They obviously have a beneficial effect, but in what way?

Many alleles have multiple associations. The gene that causes near sightedness, for example, also causes a 6-8 point increase in IQ. Those microcephalin variants may cause something outside of brain function that lead to increased fitness for those that carry it.

Cherry Picking what you feel you can debate against, as per usual, I see! Unfortunately, you were wrong, and unknowingly supported my argument. As that simply reinforces what I said earlier about humans (while being somewhat diverse genetically) not being diverse ENOUGH to seperate into races.

Agabond needs to put my post up as a sticky of some sort for these HBD’ers…

@Doug1
Your taking a leap. I am not surprised that you can readily accept(and deceitfully claim) this unproven hypothesis as fact bc it supports your prejudices.

@Sagat
Brain function=intelligence? Are you aware of the many functions of the brain?

In regards to Rushton. First, the correlation of brain size and intelligence is not an absolute one. It’s +0.33 adjusted for body size. Secondly, contradictions to Rushton’s work on brain size have been laid out by Zach Z. Cernovsky in the vol. 25, Journal of Black Studies

“Three time Nobel nominated anthropologist Philip Tobias (1970) compared 7 racial and national groups in a study on brain size/weight in which it was reported that the brain size of American blacks was larger than any white group (including American, English and French whites) except those from the Swedish sub sample who had the largest brains of any sample in the study. It was also estimated that American blacks had some 200 million more neurons than American whites, and brains that were reported to be 54g heavier (See Tobias 1970; Weizmann et al. 1990). While Harvard archeologist Gould (1981, 1996) discovered upon recalculating Morton’s highly suspicious brain size data that the blacks in his sample were on average slightly larger in brain volume than whites. Morton included in his sample of blacks more females than he included in the white sample. For example, in his analysis of Hottentotts (black tribe from South Africa) all measured crania were of females; the Englishmen were all mature men. Morton had also eliminated especially large brains from the African group and especially small brains from the European group (Gould, 1981, 1996). After correcting these biases and errors, it was shown that the black sample actually had larger brains than did the white sample (ibid). ”

Since when have taxonomists moved to such a stringent standard in delineating sub-species? Please show me a link where a .25 distance in Fst is the requisite for sub-species, because the distance between Bantus and Australian aborigines is .32 and that would place them as different sub-species.

That works. Too many “Arm Chair Internet Geneticists” and “Know Nothing HBDers” (redundant, I know) like to use the same drivel, that is almost effortlessly debunked with irrefutable (and even entry level) facts.

Oh! I’ve been a lurker for quite a while now, and I’ve only posted once before, so I don’t know. Does your board use html code for italics, underlind, and bold.

Blather bluster. Francis Collins is most definitely a defender of PC leftist orthodoxy on race differences. That’s a good lot of the reason why he was appointed to that position. He was all bent out of shape that private genome sequencing was even allowed to exist, by e.g. Craig Ventner’s company.

But send those students to college and the IQ scores of black students who graduate increase more than four times as much as those of their white college classmates, effectively cutting the black-white IQ gap in half by graduation.

In other words lots of blacks drop out of college. Those that graduate have IQs that are closer to whites who get in, than are the IQs of blacks who get in, due to affirmative action.

There’s no showing here that individual blacks have large increases in IQ in college, on average.

This is a totally dishonest way of presenting the findings. Disgusting.

Which is common among the left. It especially was in the leftist hysterial that followed with a bit of a delay, the publication of the Bell Curve. This “study” is from that period.

“Which is common among the left. It especially was in the leftist hysterial that followed with a bit of a delay, the publication of the Bell Curve. This “study” is from that period.

They have an orthodoxy to defend.”

Oh yes… this is all just ONE SIDE having an “orthodox” to defend… you, on the other hand, are just a REALIST… even when you’re siting the results of geneticist companies that have gone our of business and who have never returned their investor’s money.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that under American conditions blacks are on average 1) around 1 standard deviation or 15 points less smart than whites and 2) that around 60% of the reason for that is genetic differences on average, would saying so be racist?

Some argue that Americans and Euros think smarter = superior.

What if instead of 2) being proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is shown that whatever the relative contributions of nature and nurture, that the IQ gap has proven to be highly intractable as children get older despite a wide variety of efforts made to try to close it over the last 40 years and more?”

Proving that blacks have lower IQs than whites due to genetics is not racist. That is just science. But taking that finding to claim that whites are superior IS racist.

“…Because I believe that racism is a false belief and therefore harmful. But I am not perfect or all-knowing, so it is possible for me to be wrong…”

I did argue this early with Fenric who called you up on the inconsistence of this same position. I obviously read you wrongly. Abagond if this is view with regard to racism then I would have to agree those questioning it. Its inconsistent and “shifty”. You can’t really condemn or criticize other people for taking the view racism is “Right” or the natural order of things if you hold out the possibility they could be right.

For example. You are a Christian and a strong believer in God. If you applied this same logic you would also have to concede that you too might be wrong in holding this belief.

I take the view if you believe racism is a false belief. Certainly in the way you’ve defined it.

“…the belief that one race is naturally better than another. Not merely different, but better…”

Then NO! You can not defend it on moral grounds then change your mind later because it might be wrong!

1 Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.

2. Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (ad hominem fallacy).

Anyone who claims that the left doesn’t demonize those that find racial differences in average intelligence, or in percentage numbers of a race that have IQ’s above some threshold such as 115 or 130 – or for that matter above 79 (one third of black Americans have IQs in the 70s or below) is either delusional or dishonest. Funding for research in this area is almost always denied by the government, due to the academic review committees loaded with leftists who seek to suppress ever more solid and extensive evidence for the truth leaking out. Yet studies showing 1) the fact of a 1 standard deviation or 15 points lower black IQ are impossible to suppress or defund since IQ tests and close proxies for them are so frequently given in the US; and 2) that much of the reason is probably heritable have nonetheless been done, sometimes funded by private foundations.

It’s not remotely a level playing field. But the truth is there, despite it’s being suppressed with huge zeal by the left.

The left makes ad hominem attacks on anyone who violates political correctness in any way which is threatening to that dogma, especially about racial differences, but also about gender ones as well. Why else was James Watson, co discoverer of the structure of DNA, who then build up one of the world’s leading genetics labs and institutes from nearly scratch, fired?

“What it indicates is a company going broke. Such complaints are the rule not the exception in such cases.”

Indeed, a COMPANY going broke…

Desperate to sell a PRODUCT. Hardly the “dispassionate scientists” yearning for sacred truth, no matter where it leads them. The founders are probably selling skin treatments for itchy scalp today… and it oh, but it WORKS! Just like when they were hawking their genetic products.

I have a hard time understanding this need to base it all on genetics.

Race realists aka HBD intellectuals don’t base it all on genetics, on the basis of the scientific evidence. Culture and other environmental factors also play a part.

However genetics tend to feed into and influence culture. People tend to emphasize what they’re best at, and de-emphasize what they’re less good at. Ethnicities tend to do that to. Natural athletes tend to want to practice sports more, and exercise more. Natural brainiacs tend to want to read and problem solve more, and exercise their brains more. Ethnic cultures are shaped and morphed to a degree by what the ethnicity tends to be more competitive at, and by what it’s less competitive at.

I do not have perfect knowledge, so of course I might be wrong. That applies to everyone. Even so, I have to believe something and act accordingly. I cannot live in the here and now not believing and not acting just because I might be wrong.

Why it is so important for you to separate humans into different “races”?

The government and the left are totally obsessed with race and closing racial gaps in schools and income.

Affirmative action is government sanctioned and in some cases required discrimination on the basis or race or ethnicity (or gender) for some groups. So are federal government required set asides and so on.

The EEOC’s tests for whether illegal discrimination is occurring in any sizable or prominent private or other organization make the assumption that the races have statistically equal abilities on all things (when the scientific evidence is utterly clear they don’t) under their “disparate impact” standard.

The desire to create racial equality of results, rather than the former goal of individual equal treatment before the law, pervades government policy due to leftist pressures and especially due to utter suppression though media and academic shaming and demands of immediate retraction or that heads roll, for any who point out in a wide public forum the abundant evidence that blacks have on average a full standard deviation lower IQ than whites.

One third of blacks have IQs in the 70s or lower. Yeah that has consequences in a large part of the black community’s competitiveness outside the worlds of thuggish crime.

The truth is that you have no idea how much of the “formula” is genetics. Trying to determine what tertiary influences have (or don’t have) a genetic component are simultaneously so vague, and so complex, that it is next to impossible to determine.

How much of “determination” is genetic?
How much of “laziness” is genetic?
How much of one’s misanthropic tendencies are genetic?
How much of one’s interest in any given subject, is genetic?
How much of “patience” is genetic?

There are so many components that play into intellect, there is no possible way to know which are genetically influenced.

Listen, you are on a one way street in your thinking and it leads to dead end. Only way forward is to admit to yourself: I am a racist. Period.

And whats this “Left” thing you keep referring to? What is Left? Pretty confused term even for you, I guess.😀

Let me tell you a secret: the guys who are really obsessed about race are on the Right wing. Yes, guys just like you. Except in the far-far left, you know, the national socialists. True, my friend. They are in the same league with you.😀

Blacks, Latinos and poor whites are most certainly pictured as part of that “substantial minority” while middle-class white Southerners and old people, as far as I know, are not.

It would appear my pirated copy of “The Bell Curve” is missing some sections but I didn’t see any discussion of cognitive capabilities based upon geography or age. Also if we were to totally accept the books premise about race and IQ, roughly 12% of US Blacks and around 25% of US Latinos would have IQs higher than 50% of US Whites, so the book does not portray all Blacks and Latinos as being members of some cognitively impaired group. As I said I think others have made cogent rebuttals to what the book actually says… it would appear that Orlando Patterson is creating a straw man here.

the point I was making in that paragraph about the cognitive underclass of blacks, Latinos and poor whites being pictured as a threat to the country.

I don’t have all of the book but from reading follow on articles by Murray it seems he is worried that the US will go down the path that is followed by much of Latin America…that the US will become an increasingly stratified society and that wealthy elites will effectively wall themselves off from the lower classes.

In view of your responses Abagond I have to now agree with this statement from Fenric:

“… Fenric–“It may be perfectly true, but it is still racist.”

If the truth is racist, then racism can’t be a bad thing. I think you need to examine that statement a little further, Abagond…”

I am surprised you’re not able to see the inconsistency in this statement. Basically you are saying that racism may well be true. It may be quite natural to hold racist beliefs. If so why argue against it? Racism is not a logic argument that can rendered True or False

Let me give you another example to illustrate. You believe making Slaves of human beings is wrong. It is a bad thing. You can make and develop all manner of moral arguments as to why you believe this to be the case. Now tell me can you conceive of a time when you might change this belief?

If you can… then any argument you make moral or otherwise needs to take this into account.

You certainly could not condone the act of Slavery as an evil practice because you also concede you could be wrong about this. This is precisely the same position any self respecting HBDer might hold as a natural consequence of the differences between races leading some to behave Superiorally or dominant over others.

Another example: Your posting..

“…It is White Americans who have narrowed the word to mean just racial discrimination, violence and hatred. That allows them to leave their racist BELIEFS unexamined. It allows them to think they are not racist…”

They could well be Right according to you. If you equally could be Wrong!

“It would appear my pirated copy of “The Bell Curve” is missing some sections but I didn’t see any discussion of cognitive capabilities based upon geography or age. “

As far as I know they do not and that is just Patterson’s point: the low IQs of blacks, Latinos and poor whites are seen as a threat to society while nothing is said of the low IQs of old people and white Southerners. It is a double standard used to uphold their own racism and classism.

As far as I know they do not and that is just Patterson’s point: the low IQs of blacks, Latinos and poor whites are seen as a threat to society while nothing is said of the low IQs of old people and white Southerners. It is a double standard used to uphold their own racism and classism.

Why does Orlando Patterson even bring up White Southerners…? Does he have evidence that they have measurably lower IQs on average than Whites from other regions of the country…? Seems like a non-sequitur. As for old people… well they are old…. and generally not a physical threat to anyone. (Regardless of race, etc..) They are a net drain on society though.. Soylent Green anyone..? But seriously Murray is examining cognitive differences in such a way that it is more important within a generation than crossing generations, hence gramps being a dullard compared to the young folks since it is more important to examine people who are currently in the workforce and reproducing.

Patterson’s argument is a moral one. So take his facts as a given and reread the post and see where it leads. If you just want to pick apart his facts (some of which may be wrong for all I know), you are going to miss his main point: that Murray and Herrnstein regard well-to-do whites as “real” people, people whose lives matter, but not blacks, Latinos and poor whites, who are like two steps above wild dogs.

Or, to put it another way: What would Jesus think of “The Bell Curve”?

It is not like I am saying there is a 50% chance that the HBDers might be right. I would put it at 5%. I cannot put it at 0% because I am not all-knowing.

But even though my knowledge is not perfect, I still have the right to disbelieve them based on what I do know. And I have the right to point out why I think they are wrong. It certainly does not stop them from doing the same.

Whether you put it at 50% 10% or 0.001% doesn’t matter its irrelevant. What is relevant is you allow for it and can put a figure to it. And this has nothing to do with being all-knowing. Or having imperfect knowledge both again are irrelevant.

Another example: If you believe you are pregnant but can not be sure. You could argue you are right? on the basis of feedback evidence from your self. You could also retain a 10% doubt, more or less, that perhaps you could be wrong?.

So how do you decide? And once you have decided would you still need to leave room for doubt?

Yes. This is rhetorical !!!

I use this example to illustrate that knowing takes place in the moment or “now”. Once you know it THERE IS NO ROOM FOR DOUBT. Doubt becomes irrelevant. If the slightest bit of doubt, no matter how small, remains then you don’t KNOW IT!

If it was so impossible to KNOW anything you could not even get up in the morning or sleep at night

Any argument you make for HBDers being wrong is weakened by your own acknowledged doubt (however small) that they may be right.

I certainly could not take seriously someone who argued Slavery or Racism was wrong (for whatever reasons) but then held onto the possibility that they could be wrong about believing that.

Alright, there’s are many research papers published on this subject and its quite obvious that races DO EXIST. Specifically when taking into account gene combinations. They exist. Its not a made up concept. So whether or not you shout racism, race is a reality. The way it works is that if you’re, say, irish, and i’m irish, then we’re as closely related to each other as we are to our own grandparents. WITHOUT INBREEDING. There is also a 30% difference between Sub Saharan Africans and Europeans, and a 40% difference between them and Asians. Essentially, we’re all different species, who can coincidentally interbreed. Unfortunately when we do so we break down the gene combinations that make us remarkable in any way, resulting most of the time in some sort of muddled human being, destined for mediocrity. The first generation you get something called hybrid vigor, which doesn’t happen unless you’re mixing species, and after that the gene combinations fall apart. There goes gifted atheletes and intellectuals. Good luck with technological advancement from there on out, god knows we’ll need it desperately soon enough. One more thing. You will find more race bashing reported by white people than any other group. Why? Because black people constantly constantly constantly say racist things to white people. You’d have to go to Alabama to see the trend reverse.

I don’t think you read everything. The argument is not that there are no phenotypical differences between ethnicities.

Also, you need to clarify what you mean by your percentages because they are all wrong.

“While the human genome is mostly the same in all people, slight differences exist. This genetic variation, spread across many genes, makes up about one-tenth of a percent of each person’s DNA. Yet these small differences are enough to create people with different appearances and different health. These differences are often inherited, so the more closely related two people are, the more similar their DNA is likely to be.”

You will find more race bashing reported by white people than any other group. Why? Because black people constantly constantly constantly say racist things to white people. You’d have to go to Alabama to see the trend reverse.

Or go on the newest medium that whites use to spread hated (called “the internet”), and see whites still continuing the trend of what what they consistently say is supposedly dead…

Right, neither of you seem to know about gene combinations. Gene combinations are what make human beings drastically different, because we’re all made of the same basic stuff, its just the way they combine. Sure, the internet is a forum for all thoughts and ideas, but if you do a google search there are only maybe 20 posts like this even active, so thats really, if you consider this to be racism, not alot of racism. Taking into account any random gene combination you can predict race with 80 percent certainty. Take into account any ten and that number jumps to 99 percent. After that its more or less a guarantee. That more or less indicates that races do absolutely, irrefutably, exist. Surface indications are actually not much of an indication of anything. Hair, eye and skin color really don’t matter much, neither does hair texture. That has to do with the .1% of actual gene variation in between races. The real indication isn’t what we’re made of but how its all put together, which is determined from the small fraction of genetic code that makes us different, which governs the whole of us, everything everything everything.

Also, if you have twenty white people on the internet talking about race, and 10 million black people making white males (they seem to love the women) uncomfortable wherever we go due to overt racism, its kinda hard for the anonymous white guy on the internet to not gradually become pretty racist. That is if he leaves his home.

“Taking into account any random gene combination you can predict race with 80 percent certainty. Take into account any ten and that number jumps to 99 percent. After that its more or less a guarantee.”

Really? Then why can’t they tell if this lampshade was made out of Jewish skin?

It’s actually quite easy for white males to prevent themselves from becoming racist. They just have to stop following and indulging in the various forms of rampant stupidity from someone “who is white like them” as a form of “internet bonding.”

On top of that, they have to abolish the inherent fear of “being kicked out the white club” and being branded with the shaming name tag of “race traitor/anti-white anti-racist”, for calling out their own on said nonsense. But being called one of said nickmanes seemes to be a fate worse than death for many whites.

In Layman’s Terms, just having a spine and thinking for themselves; not letting the hive mind think FOR them. Although the combination of confirmation bias, racial acceptance, and mob mentality is hard to fight against for the racist/stupid.